1. This Letters Patent Appeal assails the judgement of learned Single Judge in CIMA No. 16/94, dated April 28,1995 whereby the appeal preferred by New India Assurance Company (hereafter the appellant) has been dismissed.

2. On March 2, 1993 at 5.00 a.m., truck bearing registration No. JK02B-7093 turned turtle with the result that labourer Raj Pal, travelling in the truck, died on the spot leaving behind his widow and three minor children. Claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereafter shortly Tribunal), Jammu claiming compensation of rupees ten lacs from the respondents alleging that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving by driver Joginder Singh. The respondent have admitted the accident but the allegation that the accident was attributable to the rash and negligent driving, has been denied. It has been stated that the accident took place due to sudden application of brakes for saving a buffalo which came in front of it. The appellant has admitted that the vehicle was insured with it on the date of accident but liability to pay the compensation for the death of the deceased has been denied.

On the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the death of the deceased Raj Pal had occurred by use of the offending vehicle No. JK02B-7093 driven rashly and negligently by respondent 1 on 2.2.1993? OPP

2. In case issue No.1 is proved what is the extent of compensation payable to the petitioner and by whom? OPP

3. Whether the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured as the offending vehicle was driven without a valid driving licence?

4. Whether the deceased as labourer is not covered under the insurance policy, if so, what is its effect on the liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured? OPP-3

5. Relief."

The parties went to trial. The Tribunal found that the accident was the result of negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Consequently, compensation of Rs.2.88 lacs was awarded to the widow and three minor children with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, by application of multiplier of sixteen and fixing the age of the deceased at 30 years. The appellant could not prove the issues, onus of which was on it, with the result that these issues have been decided against it.

The appellant confined the challenge to issue No.4 before the learned Single Judge as well as this Court. Precisely, the challenge was that there is marked difference between labourer engaged by the hirer of the truck for the carriage of his goods and the labourer of the insured for accompanying the goods at his instance. This being so, deceased Raj Pal, being the labourer of the insured, was not covered under the insurance policy, therefore, the appellant could not have been burdened with the liability to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in this case. It was also contended that the learned Single Judge gave wrong interpretation to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by holding that once accident has taken place, all kinds of persons travelling through it, are covered under the policy of insurance and the Insurance Company has to bear the liability of payment of compensation. In the absence of comprehensive policy or any stipulation covering such a risk, labourer of the insured is not covered, although, it was candidly admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in case it is found that deceased Raj pal was the labourer engaged by the hirer of the truck, the appellant has no case. In support of his main submission, reliance was placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Punabhai Zerabhai Koli & Ors., (1986 ACJ 215); Kishori Vs. Gulabkhan & Others, (1988 ACJ 860); and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Singh and others, (1990 ACJ 1055).

From the other side, Shri J.P. Singh defended the judgement and referred to New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamla Ben Sultan Singh Jadab and others, (AIR 1993 Gujarat(FB)171).

Firs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document